Wordsmith.org
Posted By: des Kids/Children - 02/16/01 02:35 PM
Is "kids" as acceptable as national TV commercials and general usage consider it??? I shudder.

By the way, I am not familiar with many of the great words you discuss, so I will keep tuning in and counting on your posts to raise my IQ!!!!

Posted By: wwh Re: Kids/Children - 02/16/01 02:41 PM
Dear Des: Perhaps if small humans possessed more decorum, and did not dance, bounce, and jump quite so much, they would not have been compared to little goats. I'm not sure I would enjoy them more if the bounce were taken out of them.wwh

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Re: Kids/Children - 02/16/01 02:56 PM
Goodness, Des, what inaccessable mountain retreat do you inhabit? I'm old, and "kids" has been a common term, at least in my family and milieu, as long as I can remember. It may not be elegant, but if you accept common usage as legitimization of a word, it's certainly legit, because it's common (in both senses of the word).

Posted By: Fiberbabe Re: Kids/Children - 02/16/01 02:58 PM
In reply to:

Goodness, Des, what inaccessable mountain retreat do you inhabit?


Obviously one accessible by goats.


Posted By: des Re: Kids/Children - 02/16/01 03:15 PM
Mercy, I got left behind somewhere along the line! I am not an old fuddy-duddy, really! Thanks for your remarks, I may try to adjust my view of "kids". I guess it will always be slang to me, yet I am a big slang user of other words! Just a hangup I have, by the way I have 2 daughters!

Posted By: Jackie Re: Kids/Children - 02/16/01 04:16 PM
by the way I have 2 daughters!

By any chance is one of them named Nanny?

You're a neat person--stick around, and don't worry about the words: somebody'll be happy to explain, or tell you where you can look it up (YCLIU).

Posted By: Sparteye Re: Kids/Children - 02/16/01 05:17 PM
Both Webster's and American Heritage designate "kid" as informal, not slang, for child, and Webster's even lists that use as its first definition, rather than young goat. I can't remember a time when "kids" didn't refer to children, although I do not use the term in formal writing. I think, des, in your lifetime "kid" has passed from slang to informal, and perhaps in the next century will be acceptable in all contexts.

Posted By: of troy Re: Kids gloves - 02/16/01 05:51 PM
If children is the first defination of "kid" it gives a new meaning to kid-gloves-- are kid gloves now something akin to boxing gloves -- used to handle unrully kids? or something like latex-- to insulate your self from contamination when dealing with kids?

The thing i used to had most was emptying my kids pockets-- i think that they sometimes could of qualified for super fund money used to clean up hazzardous waste sites! especially my son. but my daughter once filled her pockets with fruits from the ginko tree-- these are less than aromatic when fresh, when dried and mashed into pockets they are truly vile.

Posted By: jmh Re: Kids - 02/16/01 09:25 PM
I'm with Des here. My father was a headteacher and loathes the creeping invasion of the word "kid". When I hear the word, I can almost see him wince. In his eyes, it was part of a lack of respect for children as people and their education. I rarely use the word. [mutter, mutter, heading off to mountain retreat emoticon]

Posted By: Father Steve Re: Kids - 02/17/01 06:30 AM
In my grammar schooling, my teachers were adamant about the impermissibility of the use of the word "kid" in written English to mean anything other than a young goat. We were free to use it orally in the schoolyard but one risked severe punishment if used in an essay or story. This describes the 1950's.



Posted By: Geoff Re: Kids - 02/17/01 06:59 AM
In my grammar schooling, my teachers were adamant about the impermissibility of the use of the word "kid" in written English to mean anything other than a young goat. We were free to use it orally in the schoolyard but one risked severe punishment if used in an essay or story. This describes the 1950's.

I wish I could remember the statement by Oliver Wendell Holmes, ca. 1920, wherein he stated something to the effect that a word is akin to a cut gemstone, now reflecting one meaning, now another, depending on the light of context through which it is viewed. We all have some pet peeves regarding words seen in an "inappropriate" light. Mine is the term, "gay." To me it will always mean "cheerful," "blithe," "merry," and never homosexual. I seem, however, to be the only one in the world who's still holding out!

Jazzoctopus, if you're reading this, comment, please, on the possible link between "kinder" in German and "kid" in English.

Posted By: Father Steve Gay - 02/17/01 07:11 AM
There is a quite wonderful old English table grace which includes the petition "Give us gay and grateful hearts." I have used this grace on a number of occasions where it is met with snickers. Sad.

Posted By: Jazzoctopus Re: Kids - 02/17/01 01:53 PM
Jazzoctopus, if you're reading this, comment, please, on the possible link between "kinder" in German and "kid" in English.

Hmm. . . I can't profess to be an expert at the relationships between German and English, but I can try to help.

In German, child is "das Kind", which, because of the language similarities, could feasibly be linked to both child and kid. Perhaps "kid" started being used to refer to children when the US began using Kindergartens.

Posted By: musick Re: Kids - 02/17/01 02:25 PM
Where is BikerMom?

Posted By: Geoff Re: Gay - 02/17/01 04:21 PM
Give us gay and grateful hearts." I have used
this grace on a number of occasions where it is met with snickers. Sad.


I think of Dylan Thomas' poem, "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night," wherein the word is powerfully used, but, as you mentioned, met with snickers by young readers. Thus am I no longer gay, but morose and curmudgeonly.

Posted By: Father Steve Re: Curmudgeonly - 02/17/01 04:38 PM
I no longer gay, but morose and curmudgeonly

Being morose is a bad thing. Being curmudgeonly is a great privilege attained by those who have lived long enough to form opinions predicated on advanced intelligence fueled by the wisdom of considering and reconsidering many issues. It is therefor a good thing ... one curmudgeon to another.


Posted By: Sparteye Re: Morose - 02/20/01 05:41 PM
A pessimist is one who looks at the world through morose colored glasses.

-- unattributed quote because I forget who said it.

Posted By: des Re: Kids/Children - 02/20/01 06:29 PM
I actually said "kids" today in a conversation...guess what... (with your chiding I had to try) I only flinched a little bit! I may come down off the mountain! Thanks to you all!

Posted By: Fiberbabe Re: Gay - 02/20/01 08:29 PM
In reply to:

There is a quite wonderful old English table grace which includes the petition "Give us gay and grateful hearts." I have used this grace on a number of occasions where it is met with snickers. Sad.



Queer is another fine word that's gone the same way, Father Steve. While I'm fond of the Carrollian (Hi Max!) synonym "curious", sometimes things are just so surreal they call for "queer".

Posted By: RhubarbCommando Re: Gay - 02/20/01 08:36 PM
Personally, in this context, I mourn for "Sunday's Child" - - -

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Re: Gay - 02/20/01 08:56 PM
Re "Queer"
This is not a recent phenomenon. A good many years ago (well, 43 or 44 to be more exact) my mother made friends with a woman she met at work who was an English war bride. She and her husband came to dinner and we found that she had so many strange prejudices about food that there was scarcely anything on the table she could, or would, eat. She started to explain this by saying, "Well, I know I'm awfully queer ..." but never got to finish because my younger siblings all exploded in laughter.

Posted By: Father Steve Queer - 02/21/01 12:08 AM
One of my chums in Lincolnshire reacts to the news that someone has done something remarkably odd by saying "There's not so queer as folk." I think this to be a Cornish expression, but I'm uncertain. It conveys the sense wonderfully.


Posted By: RhubarbCommando Re: Queer Folk - 02/21/01 09:57 AM
I claim the expression, "There's nowt so queer as folk," for Northern England. Almost certainly Yorkshire, although these days you will hear it in Lancashire as well/ Only among the older denizens, of course. The modern meaning of "queer" is too engrained amonst the younger people for the expression to be usable amongst them. (Also, as it's used by older people, it's "not cool")

Incidentally, I have noticed an upsurge in the use of "queer" to denote homosexuality, after it was relegated to non-PC language and replaced by "Gay." Many of my homosexual friends and acquaintances use it about themselves, these days.
My guess (for what it's worth) is that "Gay" has achieved a pejorative connotation, (as will any word that describes any phenomenon that society in general finds hard to understand and harder to accept) and the homosexual community is trying to rehabilitate "queer" so that it no longer does have that sort of negative association.

Posted By: jmh Re: Queer - 02/21/01 12:55 PM
>"There's nowt so queer as folk,"

I was only thinking of this today. A very popular Northern expression.

Similarly I agree about "Queer" being re-claimed and "Gay" being out of fashion. I've noticed that "You are gay" (and I don't think they mean cheerful) is becoming a popular playground term of abuse here, so perhaps that is one of the reasons for the change.

Posted By: wwh Re: Queer - 02/21/01 02:40 PM
I too wish the word "gay" had not been dragged into the mud.I have known some people named Gay who were ridiculed when the change happened.I feel compassion for the unfortunates who have "a problem with sexual identification" and deplore the persecution of them which has destroyed so many gifted individuals. But I also deplore their new found aggressiveness.

Posted By: Fiberbabe Re: Queer Folk - 02/21/01 02:42 PM
>My guess (for what it's worth) is that "Gay" has achieved a pejorative connotation, (as will any word that describes any phenomenon that society in general finds hard to understand and harder to accept) and the homosexual community is trying to rehabilitate "queer" so that it no longer does have that sort of negative association.

Well, if I may speak to that as someone who has spent the majority of my career as the token hetero in the theatre... you wouldn't believe what they call themselves (no divisiveness intended by the use of the third person plural). Gay, queer, homo, fag, and far more indelicate things than I'd care to detail in this forum! The question of pejorative seems, as usual, more tied to the inclinations/sympathies of whoever is doing the talking... While I can get away with using said words in playful banter with my gay friends, Jerry Falwell is unlikely to reap the same benefit of the doubt.

Posted By: Faldage Re: Kids vs. children - 02/21/01 03:09 PM
This has been one of my projects over the last several many years. The word children is almost extinct in common English usage. From State of the Union speeches to radio interviews of education professionals the ratio of kids to children is about 100 to 1.

Posted By: tsuwm Re: Kids vs. children - 02/21/01 03:14 PM
>This has been one of my projects... the ratio of kids to children is about 100 to 1.

just curious... your project is to count? or to inveigh against?

Posted By: jmh Re: Queer Folk - 02/21/01 03:52 PM
>The question of pejorative seems, as usual, more tied to the inclinations/sympathies of whoever is doing the talking...

Yes, I've often been the only xxx amongst a group of yyy, female/male, white/black, able-bodied/disabled, heterosexual/homosexual - I've learnt to be very, very careful with some of the words I've come across. In most instances words which are OK within a group are strictly not OK if you are not part of the group.

Posted By: Faldage Re: Kids vs. children - 02/21/01 04:31 PM
Now, tsuwm, (your project is to count? or to inveigh against?) when have you known me to inveigh against? I, too, grew up learning that kids is not acceptable in formal contexts. This, just from a survey of common usage, seems no longer to be the case.

My project is noticing things like this.



Posted By: wow Re: 1950s joke - late submission - 02/21/01 05:42 PM
Two elderly English gentlemen ensconced in the lounge of their club.
First Man : "I say, heard about Cholmondley?"
Other Man : "No. What's he doing?"
First Man : "In Africa. Living with an ape."
Other Man : "Male or female?"
First Man : "Female, of course!
He may be odd but he's not queer."

How Times do change.
wow

Posted By: Sparteye Re: Queer as Folk - 02/21/01 07:00 PM
Queer as Folk is now the title of a TV show on a cable network in the US. The show is about homosexuals.

Posted By: wwh Re: 1950s joke - late submission - 02/21/01 08:05 PM
There was a young man from Dundee
Who had sex with an ape in a tree
The results were most horrid
All ass and no forehead
Six balls and a purple goatee. Date 1935

Posted By: jmh Re: Queer as Folk - 02/21/01 08:30 PM
I think it is shown here but I've not seen it.

Posted By: Jazzoctopus Re: Queer as Folk - 02/21/01 10:32 PM
Queer as Folk

The US version of the cable channel Showtime is a spin-off of the Brit version that was on BBC 4, I think. The US version is set in Pittsburg (though it's filmed in Canada) and is considered to be the homosexual counterpart of HBO's Sex in the City

Posted By: BeingCJ Re: Kids vs. children - 02/21/01 11:26 PM
kids is not acceptable in formal contexts. This, just from a survey of common usage

I don't have any problem with "kids" usage (2 kids @ my house also), but I hope that Rugrats never moves from slang to daily use. Especially considering the nasty nature of those cartoon charactors.




CJ
Posted By: wwh Re: Kids vs. children - 02/22/01 12:42 AM
RugRats:
Rugs are stationary mops.
Kids are self-propelled mops.

Posted By: wow Re: Kids vs. children - 02/22/01 02:34 PM
Being CJ wrote : kids is not acceptable in formal contexts. This, just from a survey of common usage
--------------------------------------------------------
My feeling is that "children" has a connotation of well behaved whereas "kids" has a raucous note to it.
wow

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Kids vs. children - 02/22/01 02:47 PM
I generally refer to mine, collectively, as lilliputians, which i think is appropriate on myriad levels.

i switched to this term of endearment when my standard round-up call, "Come along, my little tax-deductions" gleaned some odd looks from strangers.

Posted By: wwh Re: Kids vs. children - 02/22/01 02:52 PM
Also "Munchkins".

Posted By: bikermom Re: Gay - 02/22/01 02:57 PM
Just had to respond to this one. While volunteering to listen to 5th graders read, one mother, said the book her student was reading should be banned. "Why" I said, "Well it talks about gays and fairies" OK, what is the title "The Secret Garden" she said. Well, if it is the same as the Hallmark Hall of Fame Movie, I said, the word gay must mean happy as it used in the Victorian days. NO she insisted. Wellshow me the page---she said it is on the first page, the sentence read "Mary was bored as a child, because while her father either worked or drank socially, her mother amused herself by attending gay parties with her female friends" (happy parties) and the fairy part--Well the sentence said "Mary met a fair young man in her garden, he was so small,fair and fine, he almost looked like a girl." When I explained it is not a bad book, WOW was she hot---then she became defensive. Ignorance is bliss--not in this case!!!

enthusiast
Posted By: Faldage Re: Kids vs. children - 02/22/01 03:24 PM
My favorite, from the old comic strip Bloom County is "small house apes."

Research into kid, Kind and child indicates that there is no known relation among the three words. Kid traces back to Old Norse through Middle English (probably entered the language during the days of the Danelaw and refers to antelope young as well as goat young), child traces back no further that Old English cild. Kind traces back to Indo European and is distantly related to the English kin and king and such diverse words as gentile and naive See http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE143.html

Posted By: wow Re: Kids vs. children - 02/22/01 10:55 PM
Not to throw a monkey wrench into the works ... but ... what about "Kiddies?"
As in when inquiring about a friend's childen : "How are all the kiddies?"
wow

Posted By: des Re: Kids vs. children - 02/22/01 11:32 PM
I guess I would say "How are all your little ones?" But I am sure I must have heard kiddies used.

Posted By: satin Re: Queer - 02/23/01 08:32 PM
I have a 17 year old son who uses the word "gay" to mean anything that is totally "uncool", for instance, having to wear pants that aren't at least 2 inches longer than shoe level. I also have an uncle named Gaylord, who is anything but "gay". When I learned that the term gay was used for homosexual, I had trouble calling him Uncle Gay. I too would be glad for the terminology to change back to its original meaning.
Satin


Posted By: Jazzoctopus Re: Queer - 02/23/01 10:29 PM
well, well, well, the millennial member speaks.

Welcome a-Board satin. Can we call ya Beelzebub?

Posted By: Jackie Re: Queer - 02/24/01 04:09 AM
Welcome to you, satin, and never mind the post that followed yours, especially if you didn't read the thread
where a whole bunch of discussion went on about who the
2000th AWADtalk member would be. It turned out to be you!
Did you receive a prize? The beelzebub ref. was to a misunderstanding in that thread, not to yourself, Dear.

I've got two teens, and I know what you mean.

Posted By: belMarduk Re: Kids vs. children - 02/24/01 02:47 PM
Kiddy/kiddies is used in the retail market to describe any product made for children. eg. kiddy foam bath

Posted By: musick Re: Kids vs. children - 02/24/01 04:28 PM
Not just any product! I don't think the "depth's of marketing" would go for kiddie Tylenol (almost as bad as the "kiddie cigarettes" (candy) of my youth) ....however, marketed towards children might be a compelling reason to use "kiddie".

Posted By: AnnaStrophic Re: Kids vs. children - 02/25/01 12:25 AM
At the bookstore, the children's section is referred to as "kiddie lit."

Posted By: wwh Re:Kiddie lit - 02/25/01 01:03 AM
And a lot of Kiddie lit is good only for kittie litter.

Posted By: Bingley Re: Queer - 02/25/01 09:10 AM
As I understand it, back in the 19th century gay was used as a slang term for female prostitutes, and was later (1920s/1930s) extended to cover younger tramps (hobos for cross the ponders) and convicts who were taken under the protection of an older and more experienced man in exchange for services rendered. This was what led to the present general homosexual reference. So for most (all?) of us here, the potential for sexual double entendre has been there since before we were born, we just weren't aware of it.

Which would I rather be called, gay or queer? As Fiberbabe and Jo said, it depends on who's doing the calling. From a negative minded person any description can be used as an insult. As we're finding out in many fields euphemism only works for so long before the less explicit and offensive term becomes just as explicit and offensive as the term it has replaced unless there is also a change in attitude , much more difficult to bring about.

Bingley
Posted By: Jackie Re: Queer - 02/25/01 12:57 PM
euphemism only works for so long before the less explicit and offensive term becomes just as explicit and offensive as the term it has replaced unless there is also a change in attitude , much more difficult to bring about.

Bingley, my sweet, you speak the truth. In yesterday's comics, a little girl making arm motions sings, "I'm a little teapot, vertically and metabolically challenged..."
(Her dad says, "Call me insensitive, but I like the
rhyming version."{Speed Bump by Dave Coverly, tsuwm})

It still means short and stout, which both carry negative connotations, and everyone knows it. 'Special ed.' has now become 'Exceptional Child Ed.' here, but everyone knows it
means retarded--'Advanced Placement' is still the 'Advanced
Program'. Gee, I wonder why that one didn't get PC'd?
Though I must say that I think, by and large, people are more accepting of retarded people than they are of those of us who are gay, lesbo, or fat.

Who knows what changes the future will bring? Perhaps advances in medicine will help. People who had epileptic seizures used to be thought demon-possessed. It would be nice if a change to acceptance happens in my lifetime, but somehow I rather doubt it.



Posted By: Fiberbabe Re: Queer - 02/25/01 02:28 PM
Bingley, your post reminded me of an account I heard for the term "gay"... although it was not from a very reliable source, so I'd appreciate correction if I'm off my cracker. Sometime in the 19th Century GAY was an acronym for "Green And Yellow", which served as a clothing color code for those in the know.

Anyone? Anyone?

Posted By: belMarduk Re: Queer - 02/25/01 02:48 PM

>It would be nice if a change to acceptance happens in my lifetime, but somehow I rather doubt it.

Oh Jackie, how can you say that? Look at us. We are such a varied bunch yet we manage to get along. Like every big family, we have some squabbles, big sisters and big brothers who don't always get along, but mostly what we share is friendship, caring and laughter.

I don't care what anybody looks like. I don't care if anyone has a spouse or a partner or how much anybody weighs. That is how I was raised and that is how I raised my son.

In both his highschool and primary school, there were children from every ethnic background imaginable. We are Caucasian French Canadians - his best friends Sayid (Pakistani), Alex (Mexican) and Vincent (Italian). That is in THIS generation Jackie.

Believe me, it IS possible. It takes work, it takes time and it takes good examples. It’ll happen sweetie. Trust me.



Posted By: wow Re: Attitudes - 02/25/01 03:32 PM
Regarding the subject of changing attitudes :
There is a wonderful song in "South Pacific" about how bigotry is passed on. It's called "You've Got To Be Carefully Taught" if memory serves.
Perhaps some Board member with a better memory or a collection of Original Cast recordings could dig out the words and post them ????
It stands alone as a poem, set to music it is very poignant.

Read this somewhere ... wish it was a bumper sticker!
"Bigotry is a disease, don't be a carrier"

wow


Posted By: Anonymous Re: Attitudes - 02/25/01 03:53 PM
"You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!"


Lyrics by: Oscar Hammerstein II (O. Greeley Clendenning H. II)

EDIT: I uploaded an .mp3 of the song to Max's MySpace account, if anyone's interested

Posted By: wwh Re: Attitudes - 02/25/01 04:00 PM
And as usual, the Greeks had a word for it "xenophobia".

Posted By: wow Re: Song - 02/25/01 04:33 PM
Dear Bridget96,
Thank you for finding the song.
How can I get to that site?
wow

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Song - 02/25/01 04:44 PM
Go to http://www.myspace.com

log in using the name " maxquordlepleen " and enter the password " Crescent " (beware, passwords are often case sensitive, so you'll likely need to capitalize the cee)

Once you've logged in, click on " awadabilia " and you'll see the mp3.

send me a private if you have any problems =) and thanks again to max for the use of the account!

Posted By: Bingley Re: Queer - 02/26/01 04:29 AM
In reply to:

it was not from a very reliable source, so I'd appreciate correction if I'm off my cracker. Sometime in the 19th Century GAY was an acronym for "Green And Yellow", which served as a clothing color code for those in the know.


I've not heard the story before, and it seems most unlikely. Most word and phrases origins people seem to agree that acronyms were very rare before WWII.

Bingley

Posted By: wwh Re: Queer - 02/26/01 01:31 PM
I think there were quite a few during President Roosevelt's time. Only one I can think of is WPA - Works Progress Administration. They built a big field for football and baseball, using hundreds of guys with pick,shovel, and wheelbarrows. Republicans called it "We play all day"

Posted By: Faldage Re: Kids vs. children/Addendum - 02/26/01 02:48 PM
It was, I believe, I who said: The word children is almost extinct in common English usage.

It may be making a comeback. I heard a comment from Dubya the other day on NPR in which he used the word children.

Posted By: bikermom Re: Queer - 02/26/01 03:28 PM
This is beautiful, and your family is still among the minority, especially in the rural areas. People here in the Appalacian Hills are close knit and really do not let anyone else in---they are very leery--they are white and other white folks are sometimesnot accepted. But keep up the excellent work, and your son will carry on--the world will get better. Always accentuate the positive--but it is sooo hard.

enthusiast
Posted By: bikermom Re: Attitudes - 02/26/01 03:33 PM
Regarding attitudes---If crayons are needed for schools---than perhaps this poem should be recited every morning in every school nationwide----it is beautiful.We could learn a lot from crayons. Some
are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull,
some have weird names, and all are different
colors... but they all have to learn to live
in the same box. Amen


enthusiast
Posted By: maverick Re: Attitudes - 02/26/01 05:38 PM
but they all have to learn to live
in the same box. Amen


Sorry, Bikermom - but I think this is drivel.

Posted By: ladymoon Re: Gay - 02/26/01 10:07 PM
I was a film minor in school and in one of my classes we were told the first time "gay" was used to mean homosexual in a movie was Bringing up Baby, with Katherine Hepburn. Thus being a landmark for those who track meanings and connotations.

While new definitions have to be accepted I think it's sad that the old meaning seems to have lost validity, and fine examples of it's old use ridculed and snickered at as in Father Steve's example.

Posted By: francais31415 Re: Gay - 02/27/01 02:34 AM
I have to agree with that last point - it's frustrating when a perfectly good word becomes a euphamism for something bad!

Posted By: francais31415 Re: Attitudes - 02/27/01 02:36 AM
I'm not sure I agree with that song ("You've Got To Be Carefully Taught"). I think it's basic human nature to judge people by what we see on the outside, at least to some extent. I'm not saying it's right or good, but I think it's probably a natural tendency that you would have to be taught NOT to do.

Posted By: Bingley Re: Gay - 02/27/01 04:34 AM
In reply to:

it's frustrating when a perfectly good word becomes a euphamism for something bad!


Point proven, I think!

Bingley

Posted By: of troy Re: Attitudes - 02/27/01 02:17 PM
Yes-- there have been some studies with infants-- and girl infants prefer womens faces, and boy infants prefer mens faces (except for their mothers face)-- and infants seem happier with faces that have colors and shapes they are familiar with-- so white babies tend to prefer white faces, black babies prefer black faces, etc. and its not just color-- with photo filters you can give an asian face (with eyefolds, say) a pale, rosy complexion-- but babies are not fooled.. such trick photos often seem to scare babies-- so it seems its not just color, its general shapes of noses, eyes, lips and earlobes, along with hair and skin color- the whole package!
Babies who parents wore eye glasses where not upset with faces wearing glasses, but prefered faces with out glasses (and any parent can tell you, at an early age, babies learn to pull off your eyeglasses. Babies who's father wore beard, where happier with hairy faces..

So we do have have (or aquire at a very early age) a preference for faces that look like our own --or our primary care givers.

There a natural tendency to want to look at people who look like ourselves-- and we also have a natural tendency towards languages-- but most spoke languages are more complex, and have more complicated rules than "pidgeons" -- something language experts recognize as languages that children "make up" when adults of may different language groups come to gether.

So with culture, languages take on more than the simplest rules that are used to form pidgeons-- and with the language, we can extend our culture to take it past the simple preference we aquire as infants.

So i think Francais Pi is right-- we all have to make an effort to learn to be accepting-- and as parents, or just members of society, we have to make an effort to teach openess and acceptance.. just as we teach advanced rules of grammer-- not just in school, but by our everyday behavior.

Posted By: satin Re: welcome beelzebub - 02/27/01 04:02 PM
Jackie, I thank you and everyone for the welcome. This is a very interesting group of characters. (names and ideas). Luckily I read the other thread first so no dis adhered. I have a sibling who is also a member of this group and got me interested. That person is much smarter than I am so I am learning along with all the other newbies. Hopefully I can become (at some time) a contributing member but it will take some time before I feel adequate enough, especially surrounded by so much intellegence. Satin

Posted By: of troy Re: welcome beelzebub - 02/27/01 04:17 PM
Oh Satin-- you are a contributing member! you have made at least 3 contributions to my knowledge (I could look at your profile, and find out if you made more--- but i prefer to get to know people from their posts..)

and do please hang out here, Mark Twain said the way to get an education was to hang around people smarter than your self (and to read) that why i hang out... Every one on the board has something to teach me!

Posted By: wow Re: Smart Satin - 02/27/01 04:27 PM
it will take some time before I feel adequate enough, especially surrounded by so much intellegence. Satin
-----------------------------------------------------
Whomever or whatever that intelligence is sign them up ... we need all the help we can get.

Really, now, each member has something unique to contribute from reading, experience, hobbies and/or jobs. And I am sure you do, too!
And I'll take this opportunity to thank, each and severally, the Board Members who have computer expertise and have shared it with a generosity beyond patience with me!
wow



Posted By: wow Re: contributions - 02/27/01 04:31 PM
that why i hang out... Every one on the board has something to teach me!
----------------------------------------------------------
You're no slouch yourself, of Troy!
wow

Posted By: ladymoon Re: Attitudes - 02/27/01 06:30 PM
I agree that I disagree with the song "You have to be carefully taught." While there are some obvious cases of carefully taught hatred. I believe a lot of predjucices are learned from a snide comment here and a misunderstanding there. I also believe some hurtful things said are not meant, simply because what was said and what was understood aren't always the same thing. I'm sure a chat group about words knows the power of words. Sometimes the delievery is imperfect. We don't realize how ugly it sounds on the other end. Perhaps it's hard to understand how ignorant "Black people eat fried chicken" or "Chinese people own laundries" sounds until it's happened to us. And Maybe? when we talk about a good word gone bad, we're not saying something nasty but commenting on how the definition has gone from meaning happy to homosexual to uncool.

Posted By: wow Re: Attitudes in music - 02/27/01 08:32 PM
The composer was trying to make a point and get people thinking and talking ... (one hopes in that order )looks like he succeeded.
wow
P. S. The song comes from the musical play "South Pacific" written just after WW II. Different times, different attitudes.
Posted By: Geoff Re: Attitudes - 02/27/01 08:34 PM
And Maybe? when we talk about a good word gone bad, we're not saying something nasty but commenting on how the definition has gone from meaning happy to homosexual to uncool.

Since I'm the one who originally stated a disdain for the shift in the connotation of "gay," I wish to tell you, ladymoon, that you've hit the issue dead center for me! Words can be missiles of destruction or feathers with which to tickle, or particles of knowledge, or splints and gauze to bandage and heal, depending on context. But it goes beyond words, of course. I, an Anglo man, have Chinese and Afro-American friends, as well as friends born in foreigh lands, (I'm in the USA) all of whom have faced xenophobia here in this supposedly "enlightened" country, this supposed "melting pot" of the world. My last lover was French, and got called a "Frog" in pejorative ways many times, even though she's white, and speaks impeccable English. A Belizian friend has been called "nigger" on occasion. Because English is the language of Belize (formerly British Honduras) people here assume such people to be from the USA, yet, ironically, if white USA denizens hear a black person speaking with an accent, they don't seem so immediately prejudiced, as though a reverse-xenophobia, or an attraction to the exotic, were at work. A Chinese friend tells me that she's shunned at work because of her very heavy accent, so it appears that my previous statement only holds true if the accent isn't TOO exotic! Might it be that the internet will be the true "Melting pot," the true equalizer?

Posted By: Max Quordlepleen Re: Attitudes - 02/27/01 08:44 PM
But it goes beyond words, of course. I, an Anglo man, have Chinese and Afro-American friends, as well as friends born in foreigh lands, (I'm in the USA) all of whom have faced xenophobia here in this supposedly "enlightened" country, this supposed "melting pot" of the world.

Such xenophobia is universal, I fear. My sister's husband is black, of mixed German/Ghanaian descent, I think, though raised in NZ. When househunting, they often found that apartments available for rent when she went to view them had suddenly been taken by the time she went back with her husband. Just last year, an Nigerian man was badly beaten on a beach in Christchurh (the spiritual hearland of white supremacy in NZ) while hundreds of people just watched. A corner store run by Indians in my hometown was forced to close after repeated acts of intimidation and violence, the last of which was firebomb thrown into the shop while it was being staffed by a 14 year-old girl. Such overt acts of xenophobia are the fruits that grow from the seeds sown in the language of hate.

Posted By: wow Re: Attitudes - 02/27/01 08:47 PM
Ladymoon and Geoff :
You raise some telling points ... it's just so depressing to hear about such bigotry ... especially for one lucky enough to have lived in Hawaii where races mix and even make "matches" so well.
One can but try to accept people for what they are and hope to set a good example. For consolation I think of the Hindu saying : "You cannot argue with a man who is spending his first time on earth."
wow

Posted By: Bingley Re: Attitudes - 02/28/01 04:25 AM
In reply to:

Babies who parents wore eye glasses where not upset with faces wearing glasses, but prefered faces with out glasses


Hmmmm, I'm not so sure about that. My parents have mentioned that when my grandfather took off his glasses to wash his face or for whatever reason, my sister and brother and I would go into hysterics of fear and terror as toddlers.

Bingley

Posted By: Jackie Re: Attitudes - 02/28/01 01:21 PM
took off his glasses to wash his face or for whatever reason, my sister and brother and I would go into hysterics of fear and terror

On a similar note, I recall thinking how wise Yul Brynner was, all those years ago, when I read that he insisted on having his children present when he first got his head shaved, so that they would then recognize him when he came home.

Posted By: ladymoon Re: Attitudes - 02/28/01 10:25 PM
Actually, I have been lucky enough to live in Hawaii. I agree there can be a wonderful mix of people. I once lived in an building with 16 units and people from 19 different countries. Sadly, there are deep pockets of ignorance even in Hawaii, and while I hope it never takes over, it certainly infects the islands.

On the subject of words, take the word haole, which some people say means foreigner or more specifically white people. But means roughly without respect for others. My husband says that really is a huge insult in the land of Aloha. I think it's a telling word about what is important in Hawaii. It's not what you look like, but how you treat others. In an ideal world...

Posted By: musick Re: Attitudes - 02/28/01 10:35 PM
rant/ This is all about feeding on peoples fear of or actual isolation! I'll blame it on the big marketing dept. we call "commercialism"(again).

Didn't Yule Brynner know that he was "less of a man" for going or being bald, and that he could be part of the "Normal" crowd if he just bought the newest in revolutionary hair technology?

The suggestion that the internet might be the "true equalizer" may offer the promise, but, unfortunately to whom? /rant

Can anyone tell me when did Pride stop being a deadly sin? [no wink at all]

Posted By: Geoff Re: Attitudes - 03/01/01 03:55 AM
rant/ This is all about feeding on peoples fear of or actual isolation! I'll blame it on the big marketing dept. we call "commercialism"(again).

And what about nationalism? Have you noticed that those who wave their flags the most are the least accepting of others?

Didn't Yule Brynner know that he was "less of a man" for going or being bald, and that he could be part of the "Normal" crowd
if he just bought the newest in revolutionary hair technology?


I'm a natural baldie. I tried Rogaine when it was in the experimental stage. I got a dry scalp and hairy fingertips. Woopie for the latest technology!

The suggestion that the internet might be the "true equalizer" may offer the promise, but, unfortunately to whom?

Initially only to those with ISPs. I'm sure people scoffed at Gutenberg too.

Can anyone tell me when did Pride stop being a deadly sin? [no wink at all]

When Hell went out of fashion. Even ol' King Solomon had similar laments.

Posted By: wwh Re: Attitudes - 03/01/01 02:47 PM
Dear Geoff: Who's afraid of Hell? All my friends are going to be there!

Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Attitudes - 03/02/01 09:18 AM
wwh enthused Dear Geoff: Who's afraid of Hell? All my friends are going to be there!

Now, okay everyone, please do NOT let him into the secret. The poor, deluded soul believes he's still alive. No one's told him he's already there ...

Posted By: wow Re: Attitudes - 03/02/01 03:56 PM
Ladymoon wrote : On the subject of words, take the word haole, which some people say means foreigner or more specifically white people. But means roughly without respect for others. My husband says that really is a huge insult in the land of Aloha.
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the late reply, and with respect, I believe your husband has been misinformed.
Haole -- As explained to me by a full blooded Hawaiian of ancient lineage : Originally the indigenous people of Hawaii greeted each other by nearly pressing noses and an exchange of breath. The courtesy has become the Hawaiin embrace greeting in modern times although some Native Hawaiians keep up the old way among themselves and with people who understand the custom.
When Westerners came to the Islands they did not exchange breath and the term haole means "without breath" subsequently, not Hawaiian, stranger, and then also Westerner.
In the booklet, "Asian Pacific Americans A Handbook on How to Cover and Portray Our Nation's Fastest Growing Minority Group" put out for guidance of the media by National Conference of Christians and Jews, Asian American Journalists Association and the Association of Asian Pacific American Artists, the word "haole" is defined thus :
haole (hah-oh-leh) - Hawaiian term for a white person. It originally meant foreigners. Not necessarily derogatory.
I have a 1990 address for anyone interested in obtaining a copy.
When I worked in Hawaii for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs there were three of us on the staff who had *no* Hawaiian blood. We jokingly called ourselves "The Token Haoles."
The Native Hawaiians and Hawaiians of mixed blood used the term haole - but the context of the use made *all* the difference.
I received nothing but kindness and respect from the other staff and the Trustees and Administrator.
I was given a Hawaiian name by my Hawaiian friends at the office of which I am very proud and which I had legally incorporated into my name by Deed Poll.
Crazy Old Lady Haole
wow

Posted By: Max Quordlepleen Re: Attitudes - 03/02/01 08:07 PM
Originally the indigenous people of Hawaii greeted each other by nearly pressing noses and an exchange of breath.

Wow, what do they call this? NZ Maori use exactly the same greeting to this day, except that the noses do lightly touch, and it is known as hongi

Posted By: Sparteye greetings - 03/02/01 08:20 PM
I'm guessing that this custom has never taken hold in a culture with spicy cooking. A garlic-and-onion howdy could be nasty.

Posted By: wow Re: Breath greeting - 03/02/01 09:58 PM
Oh, Max ... I am racking my brains but no luck. There is a name and I think it's similar to the Maori word. There was a delegation from OHA to the Maori in NZ and we had photos of one of the Trustees (Moses Keale ?) greeting a high ranking Maori in that manner as did other Trustees.
The subject of the greeting and its Maori and Hawaiian tradition was covered in the report of the visit. Also noted was that both languages had many words in common and when each spoke their own language the other could understand the gist of what was being said.
Sorry, still cannot think of it.
wow

Posted By: francais31415 Re: Attitudes - 03/06/01 12:28 AM
Who's afraid of Hell? All my friends are going to be there!

I am truly sorry to hear that, wwh.
No offense, but I don't think it's a joking matter. As a Christian, I feel about jokes about Hell the way a Jew might feel about Auschwitz jokes, if you know what I mean.

Posted By: belMarduk Re: Attitudes - 03/06/01 02:15 AM
Good grief francais. A gentle "lighten up" might be in order here. Most people I know are Christians, we have several Christians on Board, we even have a pastor (Father Steve) and I know of no one that would take exception to Bill’s joke…and it was that, a joke.

Please tell me what you find offensive about it.

In the Christian faith, hell is believed to be the place where the soul of a sinful person resides in eternal misery because of the evil things he did (sins he committed) while he was alive. The person chose to be there by disregarding the rules of Christianity. It is a bad place true, but how can you compare it to Auschwitz.

The people that were in Auschwitz did not go of their own accord. They did not choose, nor deserve to be treated that way. As a people, it is understandable that Jews would find no humour in jokes about Auschwitz for many reasons. Most can trace back to a family member, a friend, a neighbor or an acquaintance that was killed or lost in the war. Auschwitz is representative of the Holocaust and how easily inhumanity and cruelty can run amok when an evil power is left unchecked.

Jokes about Auschwitz are as unacceptable as jokes about black people or handicapped people. Those jokes are signs of bigotry.

I don’t know how you can compare the two.

Normally, I would have sent you a personal note however, since you felt the need to reproach Bill publicly, I believe it is the right thing to do to publicly take a stand in Bill’s defense.

Posted By: francais31415 Re: Attitudes - 03/08/01 02:46 AM
You're right, belMarduk; it's an imperfect analogy. What I was getting at was that both are places of intense suffering, and I don't think we should make light of that.

Posted By: wow Re: Attitudes - 03/08/01 02:24 PM
Our dear wwh was using part of a very old joke!

wow

Posted By: shanks Re: Attitudes - 03/08/01 03:43 PM
You're right, belMarduk; it's an imperfect analogy. What I was getting at was that both are places of intense suffering, and I don't think we should make light of that.

Dear Francais31415 (may I call you Pi for short? )

I think you're still on dodgy grounds here. What happened at Auschwitz is not deniable. The evidence is before us that probably the worst act ever perpetrated by a set of allegedly progressive people - The Holocaust - in the midst of our hubris about being civilised and liberal, was at Auschwitz and various other death-sites throughout Europe.

Hell, on the other hand, to anybody not a Christian, is simply an unproven speculation. I am not a Jew, but I feel the horrors of the Holocaust. But to most people, the Christian hell will be, whether you like it or not, a fairy tale similar to the Santa Claus one, or the Easter Bunny, or the Twelve Labours of Hercules. It may be a great act of imagination, but since it doesn't have any demonstrable reality to us - the non-Christians - it is absurd for anyone to claim that it is akin to Auschwitz, for which all humanity must bear some guilt and some suffering.

cheer

the sunshine warrior

Posted By: Fiberbabe Re: Attitudes - 03/08/01 07:36 PM
>But to most people, the Christian hell will be, whether you like it or not, a fairy tale similar to the Santa Claus one, or the Easter Bunny, or the Twelve Labours of Hercules.

I'm with shanks and Joseph Campbell on this one... modern mythology. And I'd also like to add that I find the concept of Hell rather soothing sometimes, if only to think that that guy who just cut me off on the freeway will have somewhere to go.

Posted By: Max Quordlepleen Re: Attitudes - 03/08/01 08:01 PM
for which all humanity must bear some guilt and some suffering.

While I agree with the general tenor of your post, shanks, the above seemed just a little too sweeping. Surely the victims bear no guilt, be they Jews or one of the three million or so non-Jews who were also victims of the Nazi barbarism?


Posted By: belMarduk Re: Attitudes - 03/08/01 11:50 PM
There has got to be a better word than that though. It seems that guilt - meaning feeling responsibility or remorse, doesn't really cover it. Is there a word that means feeling responsibility to make sure it does not happen again?

Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Attitudes - 03/09/01 08:33 AM
shanks asserts What happened at Auschwitz is not deniable.

Oh? What about the French revisionist academics who keep telling us it was all a ghastly mistake, that Hitler wasn't aware of what was going on, that it wasn't going on at all anyway, and that the Jews are exaggerating about the numbers who were killed for their own arcane political purposes in the camps which weren't death camps at all?

If this reads as being confused, it's because I've tried to encapsulate all of the revisionist views in one sentence ...

Posted By: Max Quordlepleen Re: Attitudes - 03/09/01 08:41 AM
What about the French revisionist academics who keep telling us it was all a ghastly mistake,

Or the Canterbury & Waikato university revisionist academics, for that matter. [hanging-head-in-shame-emoticon]

Posted By: shanks Re: Attitudes - 03/09/01 10:53 AM
shanks asserts What happened at Auschwitz is not deniable.

Oh? What about the French revisionist academics who keep telling us it was all a ghastly mistake, that Hitler wasn't aware of what was going on, that it wasn't going on at all anyway, and that the Jews are exaggerating about the numbers who were killed for their own arcane political purposes in the camps which weren't death camps at all?


Peccavi.

I should have said irrefutable instead of not deniable.

cheer

the sunshine warrior

Posted By: shanks Re: Attitudes - 03/09/01 10:55 AM
While I agree with the general tenor of your post, shanks, the above seemed just a little too sweeping. Surely the victims bear no guilt, be they Jews or one of the three million or so non-Jews who were also victims of the Nazi barbarism?

Bel, in her response to you, explains it better than I could. Is there a word for that sense of responsibility?

cheer

the sunshine warrior

Posted By: wwh Re: Attitudes - 03/09/01 03:18 PM
Dear shanks: conscience ?

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Re: Attitudes - 03/09/01 05:38 PM
Shanks and WWH:

How about "penitance".

Posted By: wwh Re: Attitudes - 03/09/01 05:46 PM
Conscience is an indispensible precursor to penitence.

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Re: Attitudes - 03/09/01 06:29 PM
True, but it doesn't necessarily lead anywhere. Otherwise, you would not have the concept that faith without works is dead. St. Augustine had a conscience, but he kept praying, "Make me pure -- but not yet."

One of the essential parts of penitence is the intention to undo what wrong one has done to whatever extent may be possible, or to make reparations to whatever extent is possible.

Posted By: wow Re: Attitudes - 03/09/01 07:07 PM
May I suggest that you type "Holocaust Museum" in your search engine and visit the site, then perhaps visit the Museum if you are in Washington, D.C., USA.
wow

Posted By: wwh Re: Attitudes - 03/09/01 07:53 PM
"St. Augustine had a conscience, but he kept praying, "Make me pure -- but not yet."

But he said that a long time before he became a Saint!

Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Attitudes - 03/10/01 08:58 AM
shanks remorsefully muttered I should have said irrefutable instead of not deniable.

And I should have added a tongue-in-cheek emoticon. I don't believe the revisionist French (and NZ) academics for one second! One of my friends' uncles was among the first into one of the concentration camps (?Belsen-Bergen) and I don't really think he was making it up ...

Posted By: wow Re: Attitudes - 03/10/01 01:31 PM
In a post-WWII book about the Holocaust written by one who had been in one of those awful places (can't remember title but will never forget the words) I read this :
"God keep man from enduring all that man is capable of enduring."

Amen, I say.
wow

© Wordsmith.org